Most Americans Have A Negative Opinion Of Billionaires Donating In Elections

 

The charts above are from a Washington Post / Ipsos Poll -- done between September 11th and 15th of a nationwide sample of 2,513 adults, with a 2 point margin of error.

By Hinting At 2024 Trump Keeps The Money Flowing In

 

Donald Trump keeps hinting at running for president again in 2024. Democrats would love that, since Trump is one of the most detested men in the country. Is he serious about running? Maybe, but by just hinting at it, he keeps the money flowing in to his PAC's -- and since he's not a candidate, that money can be spent any way he wants (including just putting it in his bank account). That may well be the real reason he's dangling a 2024 candidacy.

Here's part of how Zeesham Aleem reports this at MSNBC.com:

Donald Trump is running for president again.

Or at least that’s what he and his inner circle want you to think.

According to a new report from The Washington Post, the twice-impeached former president is holding campaign-style rallies in battleground states and has another planned for Saturday in Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucus. In recent weeks, his and his allies’ email campaigns requesting donations have hit 2020-level frequency. Trump is also constantly floating quotes implying that he’s interested in running again, and his advisers are amplifying them. “An informal poll of 13 of his current and former advisers in recent days indicated that 10 believed he would run, two said it was a public relations ploy, and another said he was not sure,” the Post reports.

It is impossible to know if Trump does actually plan to make another White House bid. While his massive yet fragile ego is helping fuel the idea of a triumphant return to the Oval Office, it’s also the reason he might decline to run again should poll numbers suggest he’d get thrashed. We’re simply too far away from 2024 to know. . . .

There are potential payoffs to cultivating that hype: It’s a way to try to keep a future lane clear, pre-empt challengers, and make sure he remains an intimidating fundraising juggernaut.

Keeping other 2024 potentials, especially those who model themselves on Trump, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, more worried about their prospects if they try to enter the race is one big potential benefit. Trump’s constant 2024 bluster could make these rivals more reluctant to hint at their own runs. It could also freeze them out of some high-profile donor circles. And since a very poor presidential run can sometimes hurt a politician's national stature, it could make a potential candidate rethink whether they should run at all.

Meanwhile Trump’s current fundraising efforts — which are going to his and his allies’ political committees and have taken in unprecedented sums for a former president — cannot be used to finance an official presidential campaign. But the money can be used to pay for travel, events, advisers and ad campaigns. It can also be used to support pro-Trump candidates or other political causes. So when Trump uses his 2024 flirtations to boost his war chest, there’s a self-fulfilling element to it. He can use that money to fund operations that build buzz — and a potential mandate — for an official run. Moreover, the more Trump locks donors into his fundraising apparatus, the more he may intimidate challengers or dampen their own ability to raise money, since there are a finite number of donors to draw money from. . . .

Trump can also use the specter of his potential presidency to continue trying to regulate the direction of the Republican Party, which has been divided over questions of whether it should remain a Trumpian populist enterprise or revert to the more traditional style of conservatism that predated his presidency. . . .

Lastly, Trump knows that he can parlay the enhanced attention he gets from constantly dangling a presidential run into non-presidential ambitions, like a new media outlet or any other new business. An entertainer and businessman at heart, Trump instinctively thinks of attention as something that can be monetized, and it's impossible to extricate his hunger for profit from his hunger for political power.

Biden Has Raised More Donations Than Trump For 2 Months

Poll after poll has shown Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in the race for the presidency this year. But it's not just the polls where Biden has an edge. For the last two months, Biden has raised more money for his campaign than Donald Trump has.

In May, Biden topped Trump in campaign donations by $6.8 million. In July, that difference grew to $10 million.

Irish Citizens Repay A 173 Year-Old Debt

The Irish have a long memory for those who help them. The following is part of an article by Alyssa Newcomb at NBC News.

It was a gesture born of suffering and kindness carried over generations.

In 1847, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma sent $170 to Ireland during the Great Famine — a time of mass starvation on the island. More than 170 years later, Ireland has returned the favor, helping to raise more than $2 million for the Navajo and Hopi nations, which have been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.

Donors said they felt like it was a chance to pay the good deed forward.

“I saw that Irish people were starting to donate and share the story of Choctaw Nation and the historical symmetry really affected me," said Paul Hayes, a native of Tipperary, Ireland, who runs Beachhut, a technology public relations firm said in an email. "Sending the actual amount of $170 personally after 170 or so years felt like the right tribute across the ages."

The Navajo Nation reported more than 2,700 coronavirus cases and 70 deaths as of Monday, a rate of infection that makes it one of the worst outbreaks in the United States. . . .

The sentiment runs deep in Ireland where the memory of the Great Potato Famine — which claimed more than one million lives by the time it ended in 1852 — endures to this day. And that’s why strangers were inspired to make a symbolic gesture of goodwill toward people living across an ocean, 5,000 miles away. The donations sent on GoFundMe include messages of hope and gratitude from people in Ireland.

"The care shown generations ago was not and will not be forgotten," said Jonathan Legge, CEO of &Open, a bespoke gift-giving company based in Dublin.

“An overdue debt repaid on behalf of our ancestors to your ancestors. Stay strong,” read a note attached to one $30 donation.

“I am currently unemployed so I'm sorry that my donation is not more, but I hope that this little contribution will make some positive difference in the same way those donations 173 years ago were sent with the same hope for ancestors of mine,” another donor who gave $10 said on the website. “I stand in solidarity with my Native American brothers and sisters during this time of crisis and send this message with love, respect and hope for the future.”

When the Choctaw Nation paid it forward all those years ago, it was empathizing with Ireland’s plight based on its own experience. During the 1830s, 60,000 Native Americans had been forced by the federal government to relocate from their ancestral lands and move west on what is now known as the Trail of Tears. Thousands of people died during the devastating trek.

In 2017, Ireland honored the Choctaw Nation with a sculpture of nine stainless steel eagle feathers stretching 23 feet high. The next year, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar visited the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma.

Chief Gary Batton of the Choctaw Nation said adversity can “bring out the best in people” and said he’s happy to see his ancestors’ generosity inspiring donations to other Native American tribes.

“We are gratified, and perhaps not at all surprised, to learn of the assistance our special friends, the Irish, are giving to the Navajo and Hopi nations. Our word for their selfless act is ‘iyyikowa’ — it means serving those in need,” Batton said in an email. “We have become kindred spirits with the Irish in the years since the Irish Potato Famine. We hope the Irish, Navajo and Hopi peoples develop lasting friendships, as we have. Sharing our cultures makes the world grow smaller.”

The donations are being used to buy critical supplies, including food and personal protective equipment.

Sanders Campaign Raises Money For Coronavirus Victims

Regular readers of this blog will know I did not support Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination. I support his progressive views, but did not think he would be able to beat Trump in the general election.

I do admire his latest action though. He has put his progressive view and morality into real action. Instead of asking his supporters for more money for his campaign, he has asked them to donate money for charity -- specifically charities to help the victims of the Coronavirus.

And his supporters rose to the occasion. They have donated over $2 million dollars, and more is expected in the future.

On this, I have nothing but praise and respect for Senator Sanders, and for his supporters who answered the call to help.

The charities that will receive the money are:

Meals on Wheels
No Kid Hungry
Restaurant Workers' Community Foundation
COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund
One Fair Wage Emergency Fund
National Domestic Workers Alliance

Six Corporations Supporting The GOP War On Women

Six states have now passed bills that would outlaw all abortions. All those states are GOP-controlled, and the laws were passed by Republicans. Those Republicans know that the laws they passed were unconstitutional, but hope that the Supreme Court (buoyed by Trump new right-wing extremist justices) will overturn Roe vs. Wade (which has been the law for nearly 5 decades now).

Most Americans don't agree with these new laws. A significant majority of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, and want to see it remain the law of this land. The Republicans don't care what most Americans want. They represent only a tiny minority hiding behind religion, and wanting to force their own religious beliefs on everyone else. These laws would once again make women second-class citizens who cannot even make decisions to control their own bodies. It is nothing less than a war on women.

What can decent Americans do? All of the normal things -- write to government officials and newspapers, demonstrate for women's rights, and vote the Republicans out of office. And maybe their is something else. There are six corporations who have donated money to the anti-woman Republican legislators. Make those companies know they should not be a part of the war on women -- and if they don't listen, boycott their products.

Here, from popular.info, are those six corporations:

AT&T: $196,600 across six states

Walmart: $57,700 across six states

Pfizer: $53,650 across six states

Eli Lilly: $66,250 across five states

Coca-Cola: $40,800 across five states

Aetna: $26,600 across four states

Democratic Candidate First Quarter Fundraising Totals

As I write this post, only 15 of the 19 presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020 have posted their first quarter fundraising totals. Three of the four who have not (Swalwell, Ryan, and Bennet) have only been in the race a few days, and are unlikely to have raised much. The fourth is Tulsi Gabbard. She has been running for almost the full quarter, so her reticence in reporting is probably due to an embarrassingly low number.

John Delaney has actually raised $12.1 million, but he gave himself $11.7 million of that. On the chart, I only included the donations he received from other people.

These numbers are reported by CNN.com.

Delaney Attempts To Buy His Way Onto The Debate Stage

The man pictured here is Rep. John Delaney (D-Maryland). He is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Don't feel bad if you didn't know that. It seems as if no one else does either. Delaney was one of the first candidates to declare, but most people outside of his home state have still never heard of him. He has yet to top 1% support in any poll, and most polls show him with less support than that.

Those numbers will not get him a position on the debate stage next June. But there are two ways to get on the stage -- show support in the polls, or get a minimum of 65,000 people to donate to your campaign. So far, he has not accomplished either task.

But Delaney is the richest of the Democratic candidates (with a net worth of over $95 million). So he has come up with a scheme to gather 65,000 donors. He is offering to donate $2 to a charity of a donor's choice for every $1 they donate to his campaign.

He told MSNBC news that he's not buying donations, since the money goes to a charity (and not the donor). I'm not so sure. It still smacks of buying support (and reminds me of political corruption of the past when votes were paid for).

I hope he fails in this effort. I'm tired of the rich trying to buy their way into political office -- any office.

He is also using some of his money to run some political ads on TV in early states, but they don't seem to be working. In them, he touts his bi-partisanship, and his ability to work with the Republicans. That makes me think he's not very bright. That's not what most Democrats want to hear after years of Republicans refusing to compromise on anything. Democrats are looking for a candidate to fight for them -- not make nice with the likes of McConnell and his cohorts.

Tax Bill Would Let 'Dark Money' Donors Get Tax Deduction

(Cartoon image is by Monte Wolverton in the Los Angeles Daily News.)

Much has been written about the odious GOP tax reform plan to give huge tax cuts to corporations and the rich. But one big give-away that's flown under the radar is a plan to let secret dark money political contributors get a tax deduction for those contributions. This would allow billionaires and millionaires to give even more money to buy a political candidate (since they could recoup that money by writing it off as a decuction on their tax form. It would be one more giant step toward an oligarchy, and away from democracy.

This is from CNN.com:

For the first time in American politics, anonymous "dark money" political donations could become tax-deductible. That's if a provision currently being debated between House and Senate negotiators makes it into the final tax bill.

The issue at hand started with the "Johnson Amendment," named after then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson's 1954 measure that prohibits nonprofit groups who maintain tax-exempt status, including churches and charities, from directly participating in politics.

But efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have resulted in language that would ease political speech rules for all nonprofits. The results, critics say, could effectively let people deduct de-facto political donations and further hide those donations and spending from the public. . . .

The original bill introduced in the House this year limited the Johnson Amendment repeal to "churches," but the language was changed in the House Ways and Means Committee to broaden the scope of the repeal to include all 501(c)(3) nonprofits, meaning every nonprofit would be able to endorse and support candidates and causes. . . .

The change would also cost billions of dollars. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the rule change would cost the US treasury around $2.1 billion over the next decade in lost revenue, assuming billions of dollars of political donations would be funneled through newly tax-deductible nonprofits. . . .

One of the outcomes of the Citizens United ruling was that politically-active nonprofits, or 501(c)4 groups, could accept unlimited anonymous contributions, so called "dark money." According to the Campaign Legal Center, at least $800 million of dark money has been spent since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. With the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, donors could now shift their money into tax-deductible 501(c)(3)s. . . .

With the new rules in place, billions would likely be diverted from Super PACs into charities. And that new money could come with strings attached. Donors would be free to make donations to a charity or religious organization contingent on the group supporting a certain piece of legislation or candidate.  

Public Is Opposed To Trump's Deportation Plans

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders -- making it seem that he wants to rule by presidential edict rather than compromising with Congress. One of those executive orders was an attack on undocumented immigrants. It authorized construction of a border wall (although that would need congressional funding), authorized the hiring of 5,000 new Border Patrol officers (which might also require more congressional funding), stripped grant money to sanctuary cities, ended "catch and release" policies for undocumented immigrants, and reinstated local and state immigration "partnerships".

Trump is already going back on some campaign promises (like protecting Social Security and Medicare, and draining the Washington "swamp"), but it is beginning to look like he wants to keep his ludicrous promise to deport all the undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

If he does try doing that, he will be going against the will of the American people. The charts above are from the Public Religion Research Institute. They questioned over 40,000 people during the 2016 campaign, and they found that a significant majority don't want deportations (79%) -- with 64% preferring a path to citizenship and 15% wanting to grant permanent legal residence status to the undocumented immigrants. Only 16% said they wanted to identify and deport them.

And that view crossed political lines -- with a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans preferring a path to citizenship. Trump (and his teabagger cohorts in Congress) may want to declare war on undocumented immigrants, but the American people do not. They want our broken immigration laws fixed, including providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants willing to fulfill some basic requirements.

I think the second chart is especially interesting. It shows that not a single state has anything close to a majority wanting to deport the undocumented immigrants, including the states that Trump carried easily in the 2016 election. No state has even a third of its citizens preferring deportation.

Bernie Is Not Telling The Truth About Campaign Donations

This week Hillary Clinton responded to a heckler accusing her of taking campaign money from the fossil fuel industry by saying she was tired of the Sanders campaign lying about her. Her response went viral on social media, and was covered by cable news.

Sanders response was to once again accuse her of taking corporate money -- something he claims he does not do. He was being disingenuous at best, and lying at worst. He was simply not telling the truth, and he knows it. He does it because he knows many of his supporters will accept whatever he says without any fact-checking.

I don't blame Hillary Clinton for being angry. She should be angry. Sanders told everyone last year that he would run a positive campaign, but that didn't last very long. He has been making accusations of campaign fundraising improprieties by Clinton for months now. And that's just dirty campaigning, because those accusations are NOT true.

Here is the truth:

* Neither Clinton nor Sanders has received any campaign donations from corporations, interest groups, or unions. Such donations would be illegal. Only individuals may donate to a presidential campaign.

* The maximum amount any individual can donate to a campaign is $2700.

* Over 90% of the donations made to both the Clinton and Sanders campaign were in amounts of $100 or less.

* Neither the Clinton nor the Sanders campaigns have the ability (or the desire) to refuse individual campaign donations because of where the donor might work. And there's no reason they should do that. It not inconceivable that an individual with progressive opinions could work for a Wall Street firm, a fossil fuel producer, a defense contractor, or any other corporation.

* "Bundling" is where a person, on behalf of a campaign, collects individual donations for that campaign. It is not illegal, and all candidates, including Bernie, are happy to receive bundled donations.

* Both Bernie and Hillary have several super-PACs supporting their campaigns. Neither can control who donates to those super-PACs or how that money is spent. It is against the law for a candidate to try to do that.

Bernie is demanding an apology for Hillary's remark about him lying. That's ridiculous! He owes Clinton an apology, because he was lying (and continues to do so).

(NOTE -- The caricature of Sanders above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Clinton And Sanders Top All Others In 3rd Quarter Donations

(These figures are from the Federal Elections Commission website.)

The total amount raised by all six Democratic candidates combined in the third quarter of 2015 was $123.2 million (or an average of $20.53 million per candidate). For the 15 Republican candidates, it was $143.5 million (or an average of $9.57 million per candidate.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders raised more money (donated directly to their campaigns, and subject to giving limits) than any other candidates of either party. Clinton raised $29.5 million, and Sanders raised $26.2 million. The Democrat raising the least amount of money was Chafee (with only about $0.02 million).

Most of the donations to both were from small donors (giving $200 or less). The Democrat raising the least amount of money was Chafee (with only about $0.02 million). Clinton raised $27.1 from individuals, while Sanders raised $26.2 million from individuals.

Ben Carson was third with $20.8 million in 3rd quarter donations. Jeb Bush (with $13.4 million) and Ted Cruz (with $12.2 million) were fourth and fifth, and the only other candidates to reach double-figure millions in donations. The Republican raising the least amount of money was Gilmore (with only $0.01million).

The Republican candidates struggled to appeal to small donors. Carson and Cruz led the others -- with Carson getting 60% of his money from small donors, and Cruz getting 44% from small donors. Fiorina got nearly half of her donations from small donors, but only raised $6.8 million. Jeb Bush got only 6.5% of his donations from small donors.

The money raised by all the candidates is represented in the chart above.

But while the Republicans lag behind in donations to individual campaigns (and in the percentage of donations from small donors), they have a huge lead in the amount of money collected by super-PAC's and other outside sources. Those outside sources won't have to report again until January of 2016, but by mid-year, a whopping $234 million was given to support Republicans while only $17 million was to support Democrats.

Clinton Leads In Donations (And Bush In Super-PAC Money)

I thought you might find these figures interesting. They are provided by The Washington Post (using FEC numbers), and show the amount of money raised for each presidential candidate.

The two leading Democratic candidates have raised more money given directly to their campaigns (which has a limit according to federal law) than any Republican candidates. Clintonn has raised $75.1 million, and Bernie Sanders has raised $41.1 million (and more than 90% for both of them has come in donations of $200 or less).

The leading Republicans on money donated directly to their campaigns are Ben Carson ($30.8 million), Ted Cruz ($26.5 million), Marco Rubio ($18.1 million), Jeb Bush ($11.4 million), and Rand Paul ($9.4 million).

But while the Democrats are the big winners in campaign donation, the Republicans have a huge lead with Super-PAC money (and other outside money). Bush has $108.5 million, Cruz has $38 million, Rubio has $33.1 million, Christie has $14.4 million, and Kasich has $11.5 million.

The only Democrat with substantial Super-PAC money is Hillary Clinton, with $17.1 million. Obviously, the big outside money (and dark money) in this campaign is going to the Republicans.

The Candidate Campaigns That Texans Are Donating To

The state of Texas has a huge population, and that means it also has a lot of money that could be donated to candidate campaigns. Because of that, Texas will probably get a lot of campaign visits during the primary campaigns, because candidates will be wanting their share of the Texas "piggy bank".

So, who are Texans donating to so far? The chart above is from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and it includes those donors who had given through the end of the last reporting period (according to the FEC). Note that this does not include those giving huge sums to PACs and Super-PACs. These are only the donors who have given directly to a candidate's campaign (and which are limited to a certain amount by federal law).

Clearly, the big winner is home-state Senator Ted Cruz, who has a huge lead over all other candidates in the number of donors. Over 8,600 people have donated money to Cruz's campaign. Hillary Clinton is a distant second with 2,169 donors (over four times as many as her closest opponent, Bernie Sanders).

The big surprises for me were Ben Carson and Jeb Bush. Carson finished second among Republicans with 1,872 donors. I had no idea he was that popular among GOP donors in Texas. On the other hand, Jeb Bush has under-performed badly -- getting only a paltry 550 donors. I would have expected him to do much better than that.

NOTE -- Texans need to enjoy now this popularity during the primary season. It will probably be ignored by both parties once the general election season starts (since most believe the state is solidly in the Republican corner). That's what has happened in the recent presidential elections.

Warren Refuses To Knuckle Under To The Wall Street Banks

(This caricature of Senator Elizabeth Warren is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

Since taking her place on the Senate Banking Committee in December of 2012, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has been a huge thorn in the side of the giant Wall Street financial institutions -- so much so that those banks have recently threatened to stop donations to the Democratic Party. They want the Democrats to rein in Senator Warren. They don't like that she is keeping a sharp eye on their unethical shenanigans, and making that public knowledge.

But they might as well be trying to get a bowling ball to stop being round -- because Senator Warren has made it her public duty to protect consumers from Wall Street, and she's not about to bend from a little pressure from those giant banks. Here is the senator's latest missive to her supporters:

In 2008, the financial sector collapsed and nearly brought down our whole economy. What were the ingredients behind that crash? Recklessness on Wall Street and a willingness in Washington to play along with whatever the big banks wanted.

Years have passed since the crisis and the bailout, but the big banks still swagger around town. And when Citigroup and the others don’t quite get their way or Washington doesn’t feel quite cozy enough, they quickly move to loud, public threats. Their latest move is a stunner. According to Reuters:

Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters.

JPMorgan representatives have met Democratic Party officials to emphasize the connection between its annual contribution and the need for a friendlier attitude toward the banks, a source familiar with JPMorgan's donations said.

That’s right, the biggest banks on Wall Street have made it clear that they expect a return on their investment in Washington. Forget making the markets safer (where they can still make plenty of money) and forget the $700 billion taxpayer bailout that saved them and forget the need to build a strong economy for all Americans. Forget it all. The big banks want a Washington that works only for them and that puts their interests first – and they would like to get a little public fanny-kissing for their money too.

Well forget it. They can threaten or bully or say whatever they want, but we aren’t going to change our game plan. We do, however, need to respond.

Now let’s be clear: $30,000 is a drop in the bucket to JPMorgan and Citigroup. Heck, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon makes more than $30,000 in just a few hours.

The big banks have thrown around money for years, spending more than a $1 million a day to hold off Dodd-Frank and the consumer agency. But they are moving out of the shadows. They have reached a new level of brazenness, demanding that Senate Democrats grovel before them.

That kind of swagger is a warning shot. They want a showy way to tell Democrats across the country to be scared of speaking out, to be timid about standing up, and to stay away from fighting for what’s right.

Ok, they have taken their shot, but it will not work.

I’m not going to stop talking about the unprecedented grasp that Citigroup has on our government’s economic policymaking apparatus. I’m not going to stop talking about the settlement agreements that JPMorgan makes with our Justice Department that are so weak, the bank celebrates by giving their executives a raise. And I’m not going to pretend the work of financial reform is done, when the so-called “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now than they were in 2008.

The big banks have issued a threat, and it’s up to us to fight back. It’s up to us to fight back against a financial system that allows those who broke our economy to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while ordinary Americans continue to struggle. It’s up to us to fight back against a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists – and their friends in Congress – that our regulators forget who they’re working for.

Let’s send the biggest banks on Wall Street our own message: We’re going to keep fighting, and your swagger and your threats won’t stop us. Help us match their $30,000 right now.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

Texas Planned Parenthood Gets Big Boost

(The image of Margot Perot to the left is from the website of The Salvation Army.)

The Republican-dominated legislature of Texas voted to defund Planned Parenthood of Texas a while back. This resulted in Texas women's health programs losing all of their federal funds (about 90% of all funding), and the closing of dozens of women's health clinics across the state.

The crazy part is that none of those clinics that closed were Planned Parenthood clinics -- the organization targeted by the GOP legislature. Planned Parenthood was hurt, but was  able to keep going in the state. In other words, the GOP played to their base by trying to close Planned Parenthood, claiming they were just an abortion organization (even though that is only 3% of the services provided to women) -- and did nothing but close a bunch of clinics they weren't even targeting. But then politics has always been more important to Texas Republicans than reality -- and hurting poor women in the state has never been a concern.

Fortunately, not all Texans are as mean-spirited as the Republicans. Planned Parenthood of Texas has received a big boost from the Perot Foundation, founded by Ross Perot and his wife Margot. That Foundation has given Planned Parenthood of Texas a $1 million donation -- a donation that will assure that the organization can continue its mission of helping Texas women (especially poor women who have no other resource). In a written statement Margot Perot said:

“For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health. Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control; scientifically based education; breast health exams; and basic, life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.”

“We also recognize the need to further inform the public of the mission of this great organization and the need to support it at this critical time.”

Obama Sets New Digital Fundraising Record

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama harnessed the power of the internet and used it to raise record amounts of money. Most people didn't think he would be able to raise as much in 2012, since the economy had not improved as much as people had hoped and his approval ratings were not as high as they had been during the 2008 campaign. Well, it looks like those people underestimated the organizational and fundraising skils of the president and his campaign staff. Here are some figures that Time Magazine has published:

TOTAL DIGITAL FUNDRAISING (INCLUDING SOME LARGE FUNDRAISERS WHO LOGGED THEIR DONATIONS ONLINE):
2008...............$500 million
2012...............$690 million

FUNDS RAISED SOLELY THROUGH DIGITAL SITES (EMAIL, SOCIAL MEDIA, MOBILE, AND CAMPAIGN WEBSITE):
2008...............$403 million
2012...............$504 million

TOTAL NUMBER OF DONORS:
2008...............3.95 million
2012...............4.4 million

Those are all record numbers. And the total amount of money raised by the campaign from all sources (including affiliated party committees) is also a record. While numbers are still be added up, there is no doubt that the total will top $1 billion -- the first time any presidential campaign has reached that astounding figure.

Romney had a big edge in Wall Street donations and super-PAC money, but the president was able to offset that by making a brilliant use of the internet to directly appeal to small donors. It is a blueprint that all future candidates will study.

Voters Oppose Unlimited Political Donations

(Picture above was found at the website ivn.us.)

A little over two years ago, the Supreme Court made a misguided decision that has radically changed the electoral landscape in this country. The court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC built on an earlier decision that said money was speech, and it said that Congress could not limit the spending of money by outside groups (like super-PACs) to influence elections (nor could it limit the amount of money that individuals or corporations could donate to those outside groups).

This decision has resulted in many millions of dollars being donated to outside political groups (by a few rich people and corporations) and spent to support political candidates. Around 44% of the political spending this year has been done by outside groups like super-PACs, instead of campaigns or political parties. And since there is no limit on donations are spending, it is now a sad fact that the rich have a much bigger voice in elections than ordinary Americans do (and therefore can demand more from the politicians they support).

It was realized almost immediately, by everyone but the right-wingers on the Supreme Court, that this decision was a bad one, which would give the rich the ability to virtually buy elections -- propelling the country away from truly democratic elections and toward a rule by the rich (plutocracy). A majority of Americans opposed the court decision.

And that is still true today. A new Associated Press/National Constitution Center Poll, conducted in August 2012 of 1,006 random national adults, shows that a huge majority supports limits on campaign donations for both individuals and corporations -- and that support cuts across party lines (and includes Independents). Here are some of the numbers:

PERCENTAGE SAYING THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DONATE.
General public...............67%
Democrats...............70%
Independents...............68%
Republicans...............62%

PERCENTAGE SAYING THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY A CORPORATION OR OTHER GROUP CAN DONATE TO AN OUTSIDE GROUP TO INFLUENCE A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
General public...............83%
Democrats...............85%
Independents...............78%
Republicans...............81%

And one result from the poll that was mildly surprising was that high-income households (those making more than $100,000 a year) supported limiting donations by both individuals and corporations by higher percentages than the other groups. About 75% wanted limits on individual giving, and a whopping 90% wanted limits on corporate giving.

With majorities this large wanting political donations to be limited, it is time for the politicians of both political parties to unite and make it happen -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment to do it.

I Say Something Nice About A Republican

If you've read this blog for very long then you'll know that I don't have much respect for today's Republicans and rarely have anything good to say about any of them. I think most of them, at least the ones in Congress, are greedy self-serving jerks who favor the rich at the expense of all other Americans. But I need to set that aside for today, because a Republican has done something he should be praised for.

Last summer, billionaire Warren Buffett wrote an article saying the rich in America (including himself) should be paying more in taxes. Many congressional Republicans criticized Mr. Buffett, and said he should write the Treasury a check if he wants but shouldn't ask other rich people to be taxed more. Buffett responded by saying he would contribute one dollar to the U.S. Treasury for every dollar a congressional Republican donated (and three dollars for every dollar Mitch McConnell donated).

At that time, I posted about Buffett's challenge and said I doubted any Republican would donate anything -- even though many of them are very rich themselves. Well, I was wrong. It seems that there is a Republican, Rep. Scott Rigell (pictured) of Virginia, who is not only donating 15% of his congressional salary this year to the U.S. Treasury, but did the same thing last year (before Buffett's challenge). Rigell will donate $26,000 this year and donated $23,000 last year (when a clerical error caused slightly less that 15% to be deducted).

Rigell wrote Buffett a letter accepting his challenge, and challenged him to also match the money he donated last year. Buffett has written him back and says he will write a check covering both years of April 20th (which will give other congresspeople time to donate also).

Now I don't know much about Rigell's finances. He may be filthy rich for all I know. It really doesn't matter. Giving a portion of his salary back to his country is a good thing, and I commend him for it. After all, matching any money given by Congress is not going to make a dent in Buffett's finances either. It's the principle that matters.

I'm sure I would disagree with most or all of Rigell's politics, but this action of donating part of his salary to his government is commendable.

(NOTE -- Saying something nice about a Republican didn't hurt nearly as bad as I thought it might, but I'm pretty sure they won't do anything soon to make me do it again.)

Getting Rich Off Tax Dollars

I spent most of my working life in a state job, where I came to know and have dealings with many people who worked for non-profit organizations. Some of these organizations received government funds (taxpayer dollars), some survived on public donations and others got a combination of the two.

But one thing that was pretty common to all of them was that the people who worked for them did not get paid a whole lot. These people knew this when they applied for the jobs. They weren't in the industry to get rich, but to help other people. These were very nice and very caring people, and I came to like and respect them a whole lot.

But sadly, there are a few people in the non-profits who think they should be able to get rich off public donations or taxpayer dollars. For example, look at the case of Edward and Marcia Dawson. The Dawsons run a California non-profit called Social Vocational Services, which operates oon taxpayer dollars. They provide job training, life skills instruction and group housing for developmentally disabled people.

Just in the last five years, this couple has earned over $7 million in salary and deferred compensation. And this doesn't count the money they received from renting vans and property to the non-profit organization -- they're receiving over $700,000 a year in rent. One of the properties the non-profit rents from them is a San Francisco apartment (and the only people who stay there are the Dawsons when they're in town).

While most of us thought that non-profits weren't supposed to turn a profit, the Dawsons have figured a way for their non-profit to make them filthy rich. In addition to their exorbitant salary and rental incomes, all off the taxpayer dollars the non-profit receives, they have been able to buy millions of dollars worth of property.

They defend their largesse by claiming that CEOs of non-profits deserve the same kind of salaries and benefits received by leaders of private corporations. Personally, I think that's a load of crap. If you want to get paid like those in private sector, then go get a job in the private sector. But no one deserves to get rich off of taxpayer dollars or public donations.

Non-profits are not given those donations or tax dollars to make some jerk rich. They receive that money because they are supposed to help needy people with it. Those working for the non-profits should make a livable wage, but the Dawsons have gone far beyond that.

Evidently this is not illegal, but it should be. It is certainly immoral and unethical and greedy beyond belief.